The earth dreams motors are just hitting the market, so not much time for problems to develop. One would hope that Honda was being conservative and learning from the competition and their own testing so that their engines won't suffer the same issues.
GM to reprogram OLM's to reduce wear!
- Thread starter Cujet
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: gpshumway
Your G is heavy because it's a luxury car, not because it's new. It's slathered with copious amounts of heavy sound deadening material.
No, you're absolutely right about that. I didn't mean it's heavy just because it's new, or just because of safety standards. People do want things quiet and so forth. It's interesting to note that the Town Car I owned was the quietest car of that model year, and held that title for some time.
It still is jarring, however, for a car the physical size of a G coupe to be that close in weight to a Town Car.
With respect to fuel economy, I certainly don't drive the G that hard, but I didn't tell the complete picture, either. Under my "normal" driving patterns, they're both pretty close. However, if I put my foot into either of them, the Town Car's MPGs would drop significantly more than would the G's, and the G has a lot more power to play with. If I drove the Town Car at higher than normal highway speeds, I noticed it on the fuel gauge (and wallet) for sure. If I drove it in the city with an attempt to get acceleration anywhere approaching what would be considered leisurely in my G, the fuel economy would take a mammoth hit.
Basically, on a leisurely highway cruise, fuel mileage was fairly similar between the two vehicles (and the Audi was in a similar ballpark). I just expected more out of the G in such a scenario. But, the penalty for flogging the vehicles was much higher in the Town Car.
Now, if you want a noisy vehicle, try my F-150. There's no headliner, no hood lining material, virtually nothing in the doors, and some rather aging, cracked weatherstripping.
And if you flog it, you will pay for it at the pumps.
The Lightning was a bit of an oddball when it came to fuel economy, particularly in comparison to something like the Town Car. If you did a highway trip at 100 km/h in the Town Car and tried the same trip at 130 km/h, the fuel economy would suffer, very significantly. I did enough regular, long highway trips in the car that it definitely paid to be at or below the speed limit. In the Lightning, the difference was minuscule enough that it could be almost confused with statistical noise.
Your G is heavy because it's a luxury car, not because it's new. It's slathered with copious amounts of heavy sound deadening material.
No, you're absolutely right about that. I didn't mean it's heavy just because it's new, or just because of safety standards. People do want things quiet and so forth. It's interesting to note that the Town Car I owned was the quietest car of that model year, and held that title for some time.
With respect to fuel economy, I certainly don't drive the G that hard, but I didn't tell the complete picture, either. Under my "normal" driving patterns, they're both pretty close. However, if I put my foot into either of them, the Town Car's MPGs would drop significantly more than would the G's, and the G has a lot more power to play with. If I drove the Town Car at higher than normal highway speeds, I noticed it on the fuel gauge (and wallet) for sure. If I drove it in the city with an attempt to get acceleration anywhere approaching what would be considered leisurely in my G, the fuel economy would take a mammoth hit.
Basically, on a leisurely highway cruise, fuel mileage was fairly similar between the two vehicles (and the Audi was in a similar ballpark). I just expected more out of the G in such a scenario. But, the penalty for flogging the vehicles was much higher in the Town Car.
Now, if you want a noisy vehicle, try my F-150. There's no headliner, no hood lining material, virtually nothing in the doors, and some rather aging, cracked weatherstripping.
The Lightning was a bit of an oddball when it came to fuel economy, particularly in comparison to something like the Town Car. If you did a highway trip at 100 km/h in the Town Car and tried the same trip at 130 km/h, the fuel economy would suffer, very significantly. I did enough regular, long highway trips in the car that it definitely paid to be at or below the speed limit. In the Lightning, the difference was minuscule enough that it could be almost confused with statistical noise.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
I have a 2012 Cruze with the 1.4 turbo. It is not direct injected.
Ooops. My bad. Not sure why I always thought otherwise. Thanks for the correction.
I have a 2011 Cruze 1.4T (non DI) which has had Mobil 1 exclusively and has approx. 14K. I've never let the OLM go below 40% before changing because I believe the turbo is hard on the oil (from used oil analysis on this site). I'm sure the OLM in the 1.8 Cruze is programmed the exact same as the turbo's despite the turbo being harder on oil.
I know color doesn't matter but the 1.4T turns the oil dark very fast.
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
I have a 2012 Cruze with the 1.4 turbo. It is not direct injected.
Ooops. My bad. Not sure why I always thought otherwise. Thanks for the correction.
I have a 2011 Cruze 1.4T (non DI) which has had Mobil 1 exclusively and has approx. 14K. I've never let the OLM go below 40% before changing because I believe the turbo is hard on the oil (from used oil analysis on this site). I'm sure the OLM in the 1.8 Cruze is programmed the exact same as the turbo's despite the turbo being harder on oil.
I know color doesn't matter but the 1.4T turns the oil dark very fast.
Garak, the G coupe is also surprisingly long. The current G coupe is longer than the current BMW 335 sedan.
You guys are tremendously misinformed about the sources of weight gain in newer model cars if you think it is sound deadeners.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
Originally Posted By: Ram01
So what that means is that Mobil 1, Mobil 1 Extended Performance, Pennzoil Ultra, Pennzoil Platinum are not protecting these GM motors well. I thought these high quality oils will prevent that
I'd say it again, it's the low viscosity, coupled with extended drain intervals that result in rapid wear.
People really don't want to believe that these ultra thin oils are sometimes not up to the task. Especially when contaminated with thousands of miles of wear particulates coupled with fuel dilution.
Even Mobil oil says "Mobil 1 oils are compatible with most fuels; however, excess fuel dilution may require more frequent changes and used oil analysis for quality monitoring"
So what that means is that Mobil 1, Mobil 1 Extended Performance, Pennzoil Ultra, Pennzoil Platinum are not protecting these GM motors well. I thought these high quality oils will prevent that
I'd say it again, it's the low viscosity, coupled with extended drain intervals that result in rapid wear.
People really don't want to believe that these ultra thin oils are sometimes not up to the task. Especially when contaminated with thousands of miles of wear particulates coupled with fuel dilution.
Even Mobil oil says "Mobil 1 oils are compatible with most fuels; however, excess fuel dilution may require more frequent changes and used oil analysis for quality monitoring"
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
You guys are tremendously misinformed about the sources of weight gain in newer model cars if you think it is sound deadeners.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
New cars are stunningly heavy. So much so, that installation of modern engines in older cars (like the 67 mustang) really does result in remarkable power to weight.
You guys are tremendously misinformed about the sources of weight gain in newer model cars if you think it is sound deadeners.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
New cars are stunningly heavy. So much so, that installation of modern engines in older cars (like the 67 mustang) really does result in remarkable power to weight.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Garak, the G coupe is also surprisingly long. The current G coupe is longer than the current BMW 335 sedan.
It is long, but still substantially shorter in my garage than the Town Car or the F-150.
Garak, the G coupe is also surprisingly long. The current G coupe is longer than the current BMW 335 sedan.
It is long, but still substantially shorter in my garage than the Town Car or the F-150.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Ram01
So what that means is that Mobil 1, Mobil 1 Extended Performance, Pennzoil Ultra, Pennzoil Platinum are not protecting these GM motors well. I thought these high quality oils will prevent that
I'd say it again, it's the low viscosity, coupled with extended drain intervals that result in rapid wear.
People really don't want to believe that these ultra thin oils are sometimes not up to the task. Especially when contaminated with thousands of miles of wear particulates coupled with fuel dilution.
Even Mobil oil says "Mobil 1 oils are compatible with most fuels; however, excess fuel dilution may require more frequent changes and used oil analysis for quality monitoring"
Not to say fuel dilution isn't an issue, but GM is the only US manufacturer that recommends 5w30 rather than 5w20. Ford doesn't seem to have problems with its chain-driven DI engines, even though it's on the "low-viscosity" track. So maybe it's really GM's chain design.
Originally Posted By: Ram01
So what that means is that Mobil 1, Mobil 1 Extended Performance, Pennzoil Ultra, Pennzoil Platinum are not protecting these GM motors well. I thought these high quality oils will prevent that
I'd say it again, it's the low viscosity, coupled with extended drain intervals that result in rapid wear.
People really don't want to believe that these ultra thin oils are sometimes not up to the task. Especially when contaminated with thousands of miles of wear particulates coupled with fuel dilution.
Even Mobil oil says "Mobil 1 oils are compatible with most fuels; however, excess fuel dilution may require more frequent changes and used oil analysis for quality monitoring"
Not to say fuel dilution isn't an issue, but GM is the only US manufacturer that recommends 5w30 rather than 5w20. Ford doesn't seem to have problems with its chain-driven DI engines, even though it's on the "low-viscosity" track. So maybe it's really GM's chain design.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
You guys are tremendously misinformed about the sources of weight gain in newer model cars if you think it is sound deadeners.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
New cars are stunningly heavy. So much so, that installation of modern engines in older cars (like the 67 mustang) really does result in remarkable power to weight.
This is why my friend is hanging a new 6.0 aluminum engine in his 65 Chevelle. It is almost 200 pounds off the front end. HUGE handling improvement! And the motor looks so small...
BTW, mfgr's have been developing lightweight sound and vibe reducing materials specifically to address the weight problem. They are trying, but high strength steel and aluminum are expensive to use...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
You guys are tremendously misinformed about the sources of weight gain in newer model cars if you think it is sound deadeners.
Every scrap of mat/deadener in a G35 4 door was recently removed during a rebuild at our 'family' shop and it wasn't 50 pounds worth! Add another 20 or so pounds of stuff that cannot be easily removed and it simply cannot account for the monstrous weight of new cars.
Totally due to robust crash worthy construction, and tons of required gear for safety systems.
New cars are stunningly heavy. So much so, that installation of modern engines in older cars (like the 67 mustang) really does result in remarkable power to weight.
This is why my friend is hanging a new 6.0 aluminum engine in his 65 Chevelle. It is almost 200 pounds off the front end. HUGE handling improvement! And the motor looks so small...
BTW, mfgr's have been developing lightweight sound and vibe reducing materials specifically to address the weight problem. They are trying, but high strength steel and aluminum are expensive to use...
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
A computer cannot replace common sense. Glad to see this as a step in the right direction.
This was actually based on $$$ claims for failed timing chains and guides....
"GM began updating the software in December after noticing warranty claims for worn-out balance chains. The chains link the crankshaft and the balance shaft -- "just like the chain on your bicycle goes from the pedals to your back wheel" -- and make noise when they're worn, Adler said. The company declined to disclose the number of claims.
Product investigators found that recalibrating the oil-life monitor will help the chains last longer, Adler said."
A computer cannot replace common sense. Glad to see this as a step in the right direction.
This was actually based on $$$ claims for failed timing chains and guides....
"GM began updating the software in December after noticing warranty claims for worn-out balance chains. The chains link the crankshaft and the balance shaft -- "just like the chain on your bicycle goes from the pedals to your back wheel" -- and make noise when they're worn, Adler said. The company declined to disclose the number of claims.
Product investigators found that recalibrating the oil-life monitor will help the chains last longer, Adler said."
Old news, much discussion on this already. It was really only an issue on specific DI engines IIRC.
Most GM applications have one of the best OLM's available.
Most GM applications have one of the best OLM's available.
Quote:
but GM is the only US manufacturer that recommends 5w30 rather than 5w/20
Not so..Ford Turbo V-6 is 5w30, however I run 10w30 and change every 5k miles..never have really believed in any sytle OLM, but that's just me!
but GM is the only US manufacturer that recommends 5w30 rather than 5w/20
Not so..Ford Turbo V-6 is 5w30, however I run 10w30 and change every 5k miles..never have really believed in any sytle OLM, but that's just me!
Other than the OLM has the shift to thinner grades/weights of the oil nothing to do with the accelerated wear ?
Originally Posted By: virginoil
Other than the OLM has the shift to thinner grades/weights of the oil nothing to do with the accelerated wear ?
The wear appeared to be in DI engines, more than likely a fuel dilution issue. Sometimes a slightly heavier oil helps with a car that dilutes the oil.
Other than the OLM has the shift to thinner grades/weights of the oil nothing to do with the accelerated wear ?
The wear appeared to be in DI engines, more than likely a fuel dilution issue. Sometimes a slightly heavier oil helps with a car that dilutes the oil.
My Regal has had the OLM reprgramming; I saw it on the car's work history from the dealer. That said, I'm at 3600 miles today on the oil and the OLM is reporting 53% life left. Going by what I've found here, I think 7000 miles is too long an interval for a DI engine that is known to beat up on oil.
I plan to change it out next month, at about 4500 miles; I expect the OLM to read about 38%.
I plan to change it out next month, at about 4500 miles; I expect the OLM to read about 38%.
Originally Posted By: rossn2
never have really believed in any sytle OLM, but that's just me!
I'm from the same school of thought, I find these things disturbing, especially if you have logged a lot of miles following the OLM. Then you find out they shortened the OCI because of extra wear caused by running the oil too long. That would bother the [censored] out of me. I ignore the OLM in my Jeep and will continue to do so.
never have really believed in any sytle OLM, but that's just me!
I'm from the same school of thought, I find these things disturbing, especially if you have logged a lot of miles following the OLM. Then you find out they shortened the OCI because of extra wear caused by running the oil too long. That would bother the [censored] out of me. I ignore the OLM in my Jeep and will continue to do so.
Come on BITOG surely with all the oil knowledge here are you are saying that there is not an oil and grade that can be recommended to GM to help out them with OLM issues with confidence.
How about Mobil 1 15000 mile or 1 year change range of oils or Amsoil range of long drain oils surely one of these should remain robust despite the OLM being unreliable through a normal OCI .
How about Mobil 1 15000 mile or 1 year change range of oils or Amsoil range of long drain oils surely one of these should remain robust despite the OLM being unreliable through a normal OCI .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,117
So, GM never retested the OLM on newer engines? They waited for warranty failures before acting.
History repeats itself.
Thicker oil might just be better.
Preventive maintenance wins again.
Silly consumers trust manufacturers too much.
History repeats itself.
Thicker oil might just be better.
Preventive maintenance wins again.
Silly consumers trust manufacturers too much.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked